Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

This case involved serious allegations against Robert E. Stark, the auditor-controller of Sutter County where the Sutter County District Attorney's Office claimed that Stark violated statutes, county rules, and Sutter County Board of Supervisors (Board) resolutions detailing the requirements of his office. At issue were four provisions of Penal Code section 424, all of which proscribe general intent offenses. Three of those provisions criminalize acting without authority or failing to act as required by law or legal duty. The court held that those offenses additionally required that defendant knew, or was criminally negligent in failing to know, the legal requirements that governed the act or omission. The court also held that a claim of misinstruction on the mens rea of a crime could be challenged under Penal Code section 995, subdivision (a)(1)(B) where it raised the possibility that, as instructed, the grand jury could have indicted on less than reasonable or probable cause. The court further held that based on the record, the court need not decide the question of whether willful misconduct under Government Code section 3060 required a knowing and purposeful refusal to follow the law. Stark did not disagree with the instruction on mental state given by the district attorney and accompanying PowerPoint slides invalidated the instruction on mental state, requiring that the accusation be set aside. The court addressed these claims as to the district attorney's argument and PowerPoint slides and concluded that it was without merit. The court finally held that, in a motion to set aside an indictment or accusation, a defendant claiming that the district attorney suffered from a conflict of interest during the grand jury proceeding must establish that his right to due process was violated. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

Defendant Afuhia Masiu Manatau was in the business of stealing identities. Defendant stole social security numbers, credit cards and checks for which he would eventually be charged with and indicted for bank fraud and aggravated identity theft. This case turns on the question of an appropriate sentence. Seeking to calculate the applicable advisory guidelines sentence, the district court had to "identify the greater figure [of the actual or intended loss], and then proceed to one of the guidelines' inevitable charts." The question before the Tenth Circuit in this case is "what counts as an 'intended' loss? Unsurprisingly, [the Tenth Circuit] held that the term means exactly what it says: to be included in an advisory guidelines calculation the intended loss must have been an object of the defendant's purpose." Defendant argued that the government's "intended loss" analysis rested on a legal error. The Court remanded the case to the district court to properly determine Defendant's intended loss compared with the actual loss he caused, and to use the greater of the two to calculate Defendant's applicable sentencing enhancement.

Defendant, once a practicing psychiatrist, defrauded Medicare by receiving funds he was not entitled to receive and then fled the country to live as a fugitive in the Philippines. There, defendant created the website www.liver4you.org, fraudulently promising to provide critically ill patients liver or kidney transplants for certain sums of money. Defendant was subsequently convicted of one count of health care fraud and five counts of wire fraud. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court committed four procedural errors in calculating defendant's offense level and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. The government argued that the court should not consider the four procedural errors because at sentencing the district court stated it would impose "the same sentence" even without some of the alleged errors. The court rejected this contention and emphasized that such predictions were only rarely appropriate. Defendant argued that his website was not mass-marketing pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(ii) because he did not initiate contact with his victims where they found his website, which was publicly available online, and emailed him at an address listed on the website. The court rejected defendant's distinction and held that he committed fraud by using the internet to solicit a large number of persons to buy his organ transplant services. Therefore, the court held that the enhancement applied even if defendant did not use the most active marketing method possible. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

This criminal appeal arose from a "finite reinsurance" transaction between American International Group, Inc. (AIG) and General Reinsurance Corporation (Gen Re). Defendants, four executives of Gen Re and one of AIG, appealed from judgments convicting them of conspiracy, mail fraud, securities fraud, and making false statements to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Defendants appealed on a variety of grounds, some in common and others specific to each defendant, ranging from evidentiary challenges to serious allegations of widespread prosecutorial misconduct. Most of the arguments were without merit, but defendants' convictions must be vacated because the district court abused its discretion by admitting the stock-price data and issued a jury instruction that directed the verdict on causation.

In 2009, Appellant Shawn Merriman approached an "otherwise unsuspecting US Attorney's Office" and disclosed that he had engaged in a long-running Ponzi scheme that defrauded investors of over $20 million. At the time of his disclosure, Appellant had offered several million dollars' worth of assets to the government so that it could liquidate them and eventually remit the proceeds to Appellant's victims. Appellant cooperated with authorities throughout the proceedings and ultimately pled guilty to one could each of mail fraud and forfeiture. Appellant appealed two of the district court's sentencing decisions, arguing: (1) the district court should have counted the assets Appellant initially turned over as a 'credit' against his victims' measured aggregate loss; and (2) the court erred by finding he occupied a 'position of trust' for a two-point enhancement. Because Appellant did not challenge the substantive reasonableness of the district court's sentence, the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case on appeal for procedural reasonableness. Finding no clear error in the district court's sentence calculation, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court's sentence.

Defendant was convicted of six counts of bank fraud and sentenced to 80 months imprisonment where defendant recruited other individuals to cash counterfeit checks. At issue was whether the district court erred by applying a two-level increase for possession or use of any device-making equipment or the production of trafficking of any unauthorized access device or counterfeit device under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1) and a three-level increase for his aggravating role as a manager or supervisor under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(b). The government conceded that the district court erred in applying the section 2B1.1(b)(1) enhancement where the enhancement could not be applied to offenses that involved a transfer originated solely by paper instrument. Therefore, the court held that the district court erred in applying the section 2B1.1(b)(1) enhancement. The court held, however, that the district court properly applied the aggravating role enhancement under section 3B1.1(b) where the recruited individuals knew or were willfully blind to the fraud. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding for resentencing.

Defendant pled guilty to one count of identity theft as part of a plea agreement where defendant had treated hundreds of patients while falsely representing that he was a licensed physician. In determining defendant's sentence, the district court increased his sentence under U.S.S.G. 3A1.1(b)(1) because some of his patients were children with serious mental health conditions. On appeal, defendant disputed the increase in his offense level, contending that section 3A1.1(b)(1)'s 2-level adjustment for vulnerable victims applied only to victims of defendant's offense of conviction, who in this case would include only those victims who suffered financial loss. The court disagreed and held that the adjustment applied not only to victims of the offense of conviction, but also to victims of defendant's relevant conduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Defendant was convicted of failing to account for and pay employment taxes under 26 U.S.C. 7202, sentenced to 48 months imprisonment and fined $75,000. Defendant appealed his conviction, the calculation of loss to the government, and his fine. The court held that the district court did not err under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) in admitting evidence relating to defendant's compliance with Minnesota tax law. The court held however, that the district court made insufficient findings to conclude that defendant had violated section 7206(2). Accordingly, the court vacated the calculation of loss and remanded for resentencing on the existing record. Because the court remanded for resentencing, it did not reach defendant's remaining arguments.

Defendant, pro se, was convicted of 129 counts of unlawfully dispensing certain controlled substances by means of written prescriptions and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment totaling 97 months and fined $200,000. At issue was whether the district court effectively denied defendant his right to testify. The court held that in these circumstances, where the district court initiated a colloquy with defendant regarding his right to testify, the district court was duty-bound to correct a pro se defendant's obvious misunderstanding of his right to testify. The court also held that the error was not harmless and therefore, the court vacated defendant's convictions and remanded.

Appellee alleged that six U.S. Postal Inspectors wrongly caused him to be criminally prosecuted in retaliation for his public criticism of the United States Postal Service (USPS) and its personnel. The Postal Inspectors appealed the district court's qualified immunity, on appellee's claim of retaliatory inducement to prosecution in violation of his right to free speech under the First Amendment. Insofar as the appeal challenged the district court's determination that there were genuine issues of material fact, the court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Insofar as the district court declined to find the Postal Inspectors protected by qualified immunity based on "arguable probable cause," the court affirmed. Accordingly, the court remanded to the district court for trial on the merits.